Did Chick-fil-A Pretend to Be a Teenage Girl on Facebook?

[garbon]

Sure (although surely you could have come up with an example with more bite than schooling native children). 

And that's the question on the table: is a goal that you disagree with enough to qualify someone as a bigot, or does it take harmful intentions as well.

Here's OED's definition:

having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others

[MadImmortalMan]

Surely there's bigotry based on traits and not just opinions. This would be one. Racial bigotry also.

[Admiral Yi]

Here's OED's definition:

having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others

Well Christ grabon, by that definition everyone in the world is a bigot.  You're bigoted towards Cathy and his ilk. 

[Martinus]

Are you serious? History is full of examples of people committing evil in the name of helping those they were harming. Native children being taken away from their parents to be raised among the civilized folks. Inquisitors torturing heretics so that their souls could be saved. Etc.

Sure (although surely you could have come up with an example with more bite than schooling native children). 

And that's the question on the table: is a goal that you disagree with enough to qualify someone as a bigot, or does it take harmful intentions as well.

I like how you call forcible removal of children from under their parents care "schooling native children".

Your picture should be in the encyclopedia next to "intellectual dishonesty".

[garbon]

Here's OED's definition:

having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others

Well Christ grabon, by that definition everyone in the world is a bigot.  You're bigoted towards Cathy and his ilk. 

I was writing up a post to MiM but I think it is the obstinate bit that clinches it...as that seems to suggest that one's own beliefs are irrational.  Medical science seems to be firmly on the side that you can't "convert" gays - so I don't think its obstinate to suggest that it'd be harmful to try and get rid of homosexuality.

Also, is it prejudice? I've heard the arguments of Cathy and his ilk and dismissed them as they don't fit the science.

[Valmy]

Sure (although surely you could have come up with an example with more bite than schooling native children).

Oh is that what the Australian PM was apologizing for?  Providing education?

[Admiral Yi]

Oh is that what the Australian PM was apologizing for?  Providing education?

Essentially.  The manner of the education and the socialization that attaches to education and the assumption that it was superior to that being provided by the parents.

[Admiral Yi]

I was writing up a post to MiM but I think it is the obstinate bit that clinches it...as that seems to suggest that one's own beliefs are irrational.  Medical science seems to be firmly on the side that you can't "convert" gays - so I don't think its obstinate to suggest that it'd be harmful to try and get rid of homosexuality.

Also, is it prejudice? I've heard the arguments of Cathy and his ilk and dismissed them as they don't fit the science.

This has potential, but one problem right off the bat is that religious views are by definition not susceptible to scientific proofs.

[MadImmortalMan]

Surely there's bigotry based on traits and not just opinions. This would be one. Racial bigotry also.

This is perhaps unclear. What I mean is that gay is a trait. It's not gay dude's opinion that he's gay or a black guy's opinion that he black. It's who they are. A bigot holds his bigoted opinions based on the other's traits.

[garbon]

This is perhaps unclear. What I mean is that gay is a trait. It's not gay dude's opinion that he's gay or a black guy's opinion that he black. It's who they are. A bigot holds his bigoted opinions based on the other's traits.

But the opinion held is that there is a problem with said trait, no?

[garbon]

I was writing up a post to MiM but I think it is the obstinate bit that clinches it...as that seems to suggest that one's own beliefs are irrational.  Medical science seems to be firmly on the side that you can't "convert" gays - so I don't think its obstinate to suggest that it'd be harmful to try and get rid of homosexuality.

Also, is it prejudice? I've heard the arguments of Cathy and his ilk and dismissed them as they don't fit the science.

This has potential, but one problem right off the bat is that religious views are by definition not susceptible to scientific proofs.

I'm not sure if one needs to go down that rabbit-hole.

Here we have a case of a man who says that Americans are arrogant and our attempts to legitimize homosexuality are destroying our nation.  Now there already exist nations that allow homosexual unions and they don't seem destroyed. Similarly there are nations that don't allow homosexual unions that are much worse off than America. Where is the evidence to suggest then that America is being destroyed by homosexual unions?

[Barrister]

Oh is that what the Australian PM was apologizing for?  Providing education?

Essentially.  The manner of the education and the socialization that attaches to education and the assumption that it was superior to that being provided by the parents.

Native residential schooling is a complex one.

As Yi points out it was done with good intentions - they wanted to provide a proper education for these children.  And some did indeed get good educations and advanced in the world.

On the other hand, it was their explicit goal to beat the "indianness" out of them.  Corporal punishment for speaking their language, restricting family visits.  And there were few to no opportunities to them once they graduated (since there was plenty of anti-native prejudice), so they wound up returning to their home community alienated from their family - oh and never having learned any parenting skills.

[Jacob]

And that's the question on the table: is a goal that you disagree with enough to qualify someone as a bigot, or does it take harmful intentions as well.

If the goal is predicated on a group of people being inferior to you because you (or your god) disapproves of them, then yes it is bigoted; whether the intentions are harmful or not.

So, if you believe gays or black people or half-Korean people or Americans or the French or women are inferior or harmful to society or offensive to god, then you are a bigot. Now, there's a difference in virulence of the bigotry of course, wanting them to "keep separate, not make a fuss so I can pretend they don't exist" is less virulent than wanting them all "re-educated and/ subjugated, and thoroughly integrated so they don't offend me anymore," which again is less virulent than wanting them all killed. But it's all bigotry.

Now, if the goal I disagree with is political but not identity based, then it's not bigotry. I can oppose building a bridge that you favour building, and neither of our positions are bigoted. Even if either or both of us are so convinced of our righteousness that we are willing to endorse murder to support our opinions, we are not bigots (though we are other kinds of bad).

[Barrister]

Here we have a case of a man who says that Americans are arrogant and our attempts to legitimize homosexuality are destroying our nation.  Now there already exist nations that allow homosexual unions and they don't seem destroyed. Similarly there are nations that don't allow homosexual unions that are much worse off than America. Where is the evidence to suggest then that America is being destroyed by homosexual unions?

Anyone who says that gay marriage will "destroy" a nation is using wildly overblown rhetoric.

However - any change in a society that results from recognizing gay marriage is going to take a long time to play out.  It's only within the last 10 years that any country has recognized it.  Let's just say we don't know what the effects (if any) of recognizing gay marriage might be...

[Jacob]

Sure (although surely you could have come up with an example with more bite than schooling native children).

Oh is that what the Australian PM was apologizing for?  Providing education?

The Canadian government apologized for the residential schools, I believe.

"Providing education" in this context meant forcibly removing Native children from their parents at a young age, putting them in Christian curriculum schools where they were beaten if they as much as spoke their own language. On top of that, of course, there was the kind of sexual abuse of children that is now unsurprising to us in the context of Christian Brothers looking after vulnerable children with little oversight.

I suspect the Australian situation is fairly similar.

Even without the sexual abuse, I'd consider the residential schools bigoted institutions however well-intentioned they were thought to be. When your good intention is to eradicate a culture, it's bigoted, no matter how much you believe god is on your side.